The Expansion Tectonics of Europa

[OilIsMastery]

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prkt8attugY

When I first saw this I was blown away and skeptical. I thought either this is one of the most important observations in the history of science or else it's a hoax like fossil fuel.

But the more I studied tectonic mantle oil, as it should rightly be called, the more it all fit together perfectly and scientifically.

I'm now convinced beyond any possible reasonable doubt that this is the truth.

[draqon]

Europa does not have oil...just water

[OilIsMastery]

Europa does not have oil...just water
How do you know it doesn't have oil? Have you been there? Anyway that is totally irrelevant to this thread.

[draqon]

How do you know it doesn't have oil, have you been there? Anyway that is totally irrelevant to this thread.

sorry, I did mention a relevant idea though.

It would not have oil because the spectral analysis did not show long chains of carbon there (like on Titan).

But its tectonic movement is due to gravitational pull of its mother planet, Jupiter.

[OilIsMastery]

sorry, I did mention a relevant idea though.
I was telling a personal anecdote about oil which is totally irrelevant to the expansion tectonics of Europa other than that's what lead me to discover it. In what way other than that is oil relevant to this thread?

It would not have oil because the spectral analysis did not show long chains of carbon there (like on Titan).
Spectral analysis tells you about the atmosphere and surface. You cannot judge an interior by spectral analysis.

From his study of sunspots and their uneven rotation pattern, Galileo surmised that he must be looking at some type of gas atmosphere. He was correct in that assessment, although today we know that the photosphere is a form of hot ionized plasma. Unfortunately however, Galileo also "assumed" that no other solid layers existed, or could exist, beneath the visible layer of the photosphere. That was a critical mistake. It was a bit like looking at a world covered in water, and having no ability to see beneath the water, and then simply assuming that the whole world is made of water.

Link (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/)

But its tectonic movement is due to gravitational pull of its mother planet, Jupiter.
Really? Europa's faults spread away from Jupiter because Jupiter's gravity is pushing it away? Does Jupiter's gravity control spreads on Earth?

[draqon]

Really? Europa's faults spread away from Jupiter because Jupiter's gravity is pushing it away? Does Jupiter's gravity control spreads on Earth?

well the force from gravity of Jupiter is slightly affecting Earth...but not in a way to affect it that it is noticible.

Europa the moon is being pulled and stressed by Jupiters gravity. Its a tag and pull physics.

These tidal forces significantly heat the two innermost Galilean moons. The gravitational pull of the mother planet and sister moons constantly yank and bend Io, heating it up in the same way repeated twisting heats up a metal wire. Two percent larger than Earth's Moon, Io has a molten interior and occasionally tremendous volcanic eruptions. As a result, lava lakes sizzle between 1430 to 1730 degrees Celsius (2,600 to 3,140 degrees Farenheit), although the temperature at other places on Io can be as cold as minus -160° C (250° F). This the intense heat probably caused any water present to evaporate billions of years ago, but it has generated a thin atmosphere of sulfur dioxide.

[OilIsMastery]

Link please?

These tidal forces significantly heat the two innermost Galilean moons.
Tidal forces heat the interiors of moons?

The gravitational pull of the mother planet and sister moons constantly yank and bend Io, heating it up in the same way repeated twisting heats up a metal wire.
Wow. So extraterrestrial gravity is the mechanism for tectonics?

Two percent larger than Earth's Moon, Io has a molten interior and occasionally tremendous volcanic eruptions.
That should be a clue...:rolleyes:

[Steve100]

I watched all the videos, and they seemed pretty acceptable.

But what would cause the expansion?

Does rock expand when it freezes?

[OilIsMastery]

I watched all the videos, and they seemed pretty acceptable.
Finally an intelligent person. Nice to meet you...;)

But what would cause the expansion?
I have considered several possibilities and abandoned them all except one.

It's being caused by excess mass stress tectonics (E.M.S.T.) (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm). In the case of earth, iron production in the nuclear core.

Does rock expand when it freezes?
Not that I know of. If I'm not mistaken that is a unique property of water.

[Trippy]

It's being caused by excess mass stress tectonics (E.M.S.T.) (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm). In the case of earth, iron production in the nuclear core.

Then where is the stream of Neutrinos from the earths core?
Why isn't the Earths core comparable in temperature and pressure to the interior of an O-type star (or have we got that wrong as well)?
Why is there no eidenc eof Iron being produced in the Sun's core?
Why is there no evidence for a significant change in Earths moment of inertia in the last 620 million years?

[Trippy]

Not that I know of. If I'm not mistaken that is a unique property of water.

You are mistaken.
It's not a property that's unique to water.
Certainly it's a rare property, but not unique to water, and no, I don't have a comprehensive list at this time.

[OilIsMastery]

Then where is the stream of Neutrinos from the earths core?
You tell me. I've never mentioned neutrinos.

Why isn't the Earths core comparable in temperature and pressure to the interior of an O-type star (or have we got that wrong as well)?
I fail to see what this has to do with Europa.

Why is there no eidenc eof Iron being produced in the Sun's core?
Are you serious?

Why is there no evidence for a significant change in Earths moment of inertia in the last 620 million years?
This thread is about Europa. Focus.

[OilIsMastery]

You are mistaken.
It's not a property that's unique to water.
Certainly it's a rare property, but not unique to water, and no, I don't have a comprehensive list at this time.
Thank you for correcting me.

[Trippy]

You tell me. I've never mentioned neutrinos.
Neutrinos are a fusion by-product, and are produced in the production of Iron.

I fail to see what this has to do with Europa.
You bought up EMST.
You bought up the fact that EMST claims that Iron is produced in the core of the Earth.
I am responding to the subjects you have bought up in this thread. If you didn not want them discussed, you should not have bought them up.

Are you serious?
Perfectly.
Oh, no doubt you will now trawl through the internet, and produce images of the sun taken at the Fe-IX wavelength, and cite the papers that talk about the levels of Iron in the sun, it's metallicity blah blah ad nauseum.

However, in doing so, you will inevitably miss the point that those papers are simply dicussing the presence of Iron in the sun, and say nothing about the production of Iron in the sun, while completely missing the point that the standard models of stellar nucleosynthesis and stellar evolution both say that the sun is too small to produce Iron by fusion.

This thread is about Europa. Focus.
I am only talking about the topics that you have bought into this thread (namely in this case EMST). If you can't prove that EMST is correct by demonstrating it's validity on the one planet we have access to a wealth of data on, then why should we assume that it magically applies to Europa?

A further point.

Earlier in the thread it was pointed out to you that Hydrocarbons had not been detected on Europa by spectroscopy, and you responded by pointing out that spectroscopy can only detect what's on the surface, or in the atmosphere.

However, in your haste, you neglected to realize that you're implying that only earth does Oil seep to the surface, and that only on earth is the mantle material incoporated into the crust (europa's mantle material isgenerally held to be liquid water, or an ice-water sludge).

Tell me something else, if Oil requires temperatures in excess of 1000 c, and pressures in excess of 15 MPa, then how does it form in a mantle composed of Liquid water, or water-ice slurry?

[Trippy]

I'm now convinced beyond any possible reasonable doubt that this is the truth.

No doubt this will seem like a provocative statement to make, but it's also a true one.

The mere fact that you would explicitly state that you can be convinced 'beyond any reasonable doubt' that an idea, or a thoer 'is the truth' implies you're not doing science.

A true scientest should always have their mind open to the possibility that their theory might be wrong.

A true scientest understand that it's only by attmepting to prove their theories wrong, that they can gather evidence to support their theory.

[OilIsMastery]

Neutrinos are a fusion by-product, and are produced in the production of Iron.
We have neutrino detectors on Earth and they have been observed.

You bought up the fact that EMST claims that Iron is produced in the core of the Earth.
Right. Where does the iron on Earth come from if not from the core?

[OilIsMastery]

A true scientest should always have their mind open to the possibility that their theory might be wrong.

A true scientest understand that it's only by attmepting to prove their theories wrong, that they can gather evidence to support their theory.
Quite correct. I said reasonable doubt. Not unreasonable doubt.

[Trippy]

We have neutrino detectors on Earth and they have been observed.
While this is true, there has been no neutrino flux detected that has been (AFAIK) either provisionaly, or unambiguously identified as originating from the earths core.

Right. Where does the iron on Earth come from if not from the core?

Same place Solar Iron originated from - the primordial solar nebula.

If you want more information, go and look up stellar nucleosynthesis.

[Trippy]

Quite correct. I said reasonable doubt. Not unreasonable doubt.

And yet you have simply buried your head in the sand and denied any evidence against your argument, period.

[OilIsMastery]

Same place Solar Iron originated from - the primordial solar nebula.

If you want more information, go and look up stellar nucleosynthesis.
So according to you, our sun does not engage in nucleosynthesis?

There is no iron being produced in the sun or the Earth?

[Vkothii]

There is no iron being produced in the sun or the Earth?Produced via what process, o intelligent one?

[OilIsMastery]

Produced via what process, o intelligent one?
Via nuclear fission/fusion, o condescending one?

[Trippy]

So according to you, our sun does not engage in nucleosynthesis?

That's not what I said. Stop trying to twist and distort my words into meaning something different.

Are you suggesting that the Proton-Proton chain, and the CNO cycle do not represent Nucleosynthesis?

If your going to argue, at least have the decency to do so honestly.

There is no iron being produced in the sun or the Earth?

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the sun, or the earth have the conditions neccessary to produce Iron by fusion.

I should point out that I did not originally explicitly state that I was referring to the production of Iron by fusion, and fusion alone, however I would expect that anyone with competent reading comprehension skills, and a basic understanding of cosmology would have been able to infer that for themselves by my explicit comparison of the conditions of interior of the Earth and sun to an O-type star - thus either OIM is defficient in one of the aforementioned areas, or he is simply being dishonest (again) and applying quotes out of context (again).

[Vkothii]

Via nuclear fission/fusion, o condescending one?So you're an astrophysicist as well?
Iron is the sixth most abundant element in the universe, formed as the final act of nucleosynthesis by carbon burning in massive stars.
While it makes up about 5% of the Earth's crust, the earth's core is believed to consist largely of an iron-nickel alloy constituting 35% of the mass of the Earth as a whole.
Iron is consequently the most abundant element on Earth, but only the fourth most abundant element in the Earth's crust.[1] Most of the iron in the crust is found combined with oxygen as iron oxide minerals such as hematite and magnetite.
About 1 in 20 meteorites consist of the unique iron-nickel minerals taenite (35-80% iron) and kamacite (90-95% iron). Although rare, meteorites are the major form of natural metallic iron on the earth's surface.

The reason for Mars' red colour is thought to be an iron-oxide-rich soil.wikipedia doesn't mention iron being produced in earth-sized planets (??), or main-sequence G-types. It does mention massive stars (not sure if stars of 1 solar mass qualify as "massive").

So Fe comes from nucleosynthesis in massive stars; there's something about how Fe synthesis isn't exothermic, a dying star that makes Fe is destroying its ability to maintain outward pressure against collapse. I think some other thing happens at this point..?

[OilIsMastery]

That's not what I said. Stop trying to twist and distort my words into meaning something different.

Are you suggesting that the Proton-Proton chain, and the CNO cycle do not represent Nucleosynthesis?

If your going to argue, at least have the decency to do so honestly.
I asked you a simple question. Does our sun engage in nucleosynthesis, yes or no?

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the sun, or the earth have the conditions neccessary to produce Iron by fusion.
In that case, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that it doesn't. What is your point?

[OilIsMastery]

So you're an astrophysicist as well?
What do I have to do with nuclear fission and nuclear fusion?

wikipedia
LOL. :rolleyes:

[Vkothii]

In that case, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that it doesn't. What is your point?That statement must be at least as logical as saying there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that rocky planets don't supernova. Or that the earth won't expand into a red giant.

The evidence is that Fe is produced in stars more massive than our one, it's a product of fusion - planets aren't collapsed clouds of hydrogen sustained by internal H->He fusion.

[Trippy]

I asked you a simple question. Does our sun engage in nucleosynthesis, yes or no?

And I answered it, although apparently you lack the reading comprehension to understand what I said.

First off, this question represents a strawman argument - it's not based in any argument that i've made, at not time have I stated or implied that I don't think that the sun participates in nucleosynthesis. In fact, quite the opposite is implied in my references to the Proton-Proton chain (a form of nucleosynthesis) and the CNO-cycle (another form of nucleosynthesis).

So apparently, you either lack the basic reading comprehension skills, or you lack the basic understanding of stellar nucleosythesis to understand that the answer implied in my response is:

"Yes, the sun engages in Nucleosynthesis, but not the nucleosynthesis of Iron, which is what is actually being discussed."


In that case, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that it doesn't. What is your point?

Wrong.

There is evidence to support the hypothesis that it doesn't.
According to Stan Woosley and Thomas Janka, in a paper accepted for publication in Nature in 2005, the silicon burning process - the process which directly gives rise to Iron, lasts for 18 days, requires temperatures of 3.3 billion kelvins, and densities of 4.8x10^7 g/cm^3, which requires masses in excess of 8 solar masses.

To put this in perspective (not that this has ever helped before) the sun has a density of 0.015x10^7 g/cm^3, and a temperature of 0.0157 Billion Kelvins at its core.

The Earth has a core density of 0.00000128x10^7 g/cm^3, and a temperature of 0.0000007 Billion Kelvins.

So neither the sun, nor the earth, has the conditions neccessary to initiate the fusion of lighter elements to Iron.

[OilIsMastery]

That statement must be at least as logical as saying there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that rocky planets don't supernova.

Or that the earth won't expand into a red giant.
Rocky planets might not in and of themselves but if they accrete enough mass they could.

The evidence is that Fe is produced in stars more massive than our one, it's a product of fusion
What evidence?

planets aren't collapsed clouds of hydrogen sustained by internal H->He fusion.
And your point is?

[OilIsMastery]

So neither the sun, nor the earth, has the conditions neccessary to initiate the fusion of lighter elements to Iron.
I never suggested there was fusion in the Earth. I suggested there was fission in the Earth. You are a master of straw men arguments.

[Trippy]

I never suggested there was fusion in the Earth. I suggested there was fission in the Earth. You are a master of straw men arguments.

You're suggesting that EMST is wrong then?

"Up to now about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases (4 000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be transformed." - EMST (from one of your own sources)

"They then fuse with other 2H nuclei to produce 4He and other larger nuclei. For every 4 nucleons that combine to form a helium nucleus, 2 protons are recycled (Fishbane et.al. I993). Fusioning will reduce to zero as 2H units and electrons are exhausted. " -EMST (from one of your own sources)

I thought you said you understood EMST?

Yeesh, and you have the nerve to accuse me of using a strawman argument?

BZZZZT.

Wrong again.

You didn't say "I am convinced that EMST is the truth, except where it talks about fusion."

You stated "I am convinced EMST is the truth."
Period.
No Qualifiers.

If you accept EMST as the truth, without any qualifiers, then you accept the (wrong) hypothesis that fusion occurs in the core of the earth.

[OilIsMastery]

Here is my quote.

Via nuclear fission/fusion, o condescending one?

You deliberately chose to ignore the fission part. How convenient.

[Vkothii]

In the case of earth, iron production in the nuclear core.That would be the Earth's nuclear core?
Where does the iron on Earth come from if not from the core?The implication being, the mantle and lithosphere are free of iron?
I never suggested there was fusion in the Earth. I suggested there was fission in the Earth. You are a master of straw men arguments.Right, so all we need is a model for the production of Fe from fission of something else?

Care to fill in the blanks?

[OilIsMastery]

The implication being, the mantle and lithosphere are free of iron?
If iron isn't coming from the core/mantle then how come the iron-rich rocks, like basalt and gabbro, are on the bottom and the iron-poor rocks, like granites, are on the top, when it is well known that the iron-rich rocks were the last to form?

Care to fill in the blanks?
You've made no effort to fill in the blanks and I'm trying to fill in the blanks for myself.

[Vkothii]

And OilIsMastery has no intention of trying to explain how iron is produced via fission, in the core. Fission of what?

[OilIsMastery]

And OilIsMastery has no intention of trying to explain how iron is produced via fission, in the core. Fission of what?
Uranium...:crazy:

[Trippy]

You deliberately chose to ignore the fission part. How convenient.

Once again, you're lying.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prkt8attugY

When I first saw this I was blown away and skeptical. I thought either this is one of the most important observations in the history of science or else it's a hoax like fossil fuel.

But the more I studied tectonic mantle oil, as it should rightly be called, the more it all fit together perfectly and scientifically.

I'm now convinced beyond any possible reasonable doubt that this is the truth.

I have considered several possibilities and abandoned them all except one.

It's being caused by excess mass stress tectonics (E.M.S.T.) (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm). In the case of earth, iron production in the nuclear core.

The implication is clear.
You accept EMST as an unquestionable truth.
You consider that EMST is responsible for what you consider the illusion of plate tectonics.
If you accept EMST as an unquestionable truth, then you also accept its hypotheses as an unquestionable truth - including the Hypothesis, from your own source, that the Iron is produced by Fusion.

So according to you, our sun does not engage in nucleosynthesis?

There is no iron being produced in the sun or the Earth?
The implication here is quite clear.
Stellar nucleosynthesis is powered by fusion (until the star goes asplodey).
Here you are clearly comparing the process under discussion within the earth, to that within the sun.

Therefore, it is quite clearly implied that we are discussing fusion, not fission.

Once again, one is forced to ask the question.

Are you suggesting that EMST is incorrect in it's hypothesis that fusion occurs within the earth.

[Trippy]

Uranium...:crazy:

Bzzzt.

Uranium, and other transuranic elements decay to Lead-208 which is stable.

The decay of Transuranic elements does not produce Iron directly.

In fact, my recollection is that Iron doesn't even register in the list of daughter elements produced by fission.

[OilIsMastery]

Here Trippy, it's fission not fusion: http://understandearth.com/Herndon%20JGG93.pdf

Fission: http://nuclearplanet.com/pnas-2001.pdf

[Vkothii]

Now he's pretending to be dyslexic.

OilIsMastery: your answer "Uranium" is the wrong answer. Now what are you going to do?
How is iron produced in the earth's core, via fission? Fission of what?

[OilIsMastery]

In fact, my recollection is that Iron doesn't even register in the list of daughter elements produced by fission.
Your recollection from a former life?

[Vkothii]

You aren't going to even try to address that little mistake you made, about uranium fission?

You would rather keep lying to everyone?

[OilIsMastery]

You guys want to talk about anything but Europa don't you.

[Vkothii]

Does that mean: you aren't going to explain the ridiculous claims you've made, since introducing the subject of "europa"?

[Trippy]

It's being caused by excess mass stress tectonics (E.M.S.T.) (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm). In the case of earth, iron production in the nuclear core.


Not that I know of. If I'm not mistaken that is a unique property of water.

Here Trippy, it's fission not fusion: http://understandearth.com/Herndon%20JGG93.pdf

Fission: http://nuclearplanet.com/pnas-2001.pdf

That's not what your source says.
That's not what your source says EMST says.

Are you now saying that EMST and Stavros are wrong?
Are you now contradicting your source, which you have abused other people in defense of?
Are you going to apologize to those you have abused in defense of EMST?

[Trippy]

Your recollection from a former life?

Oh, and of course you can prove that Iron is among the daughter nuclei produced by Nuclear Fission.

[Trippy]

You guys want to talk about anything but Europa don't you.

You're the one that brought up EMST.
You're the one that claimed EMST was responsible for this magical mythical growth of EUropa.

[OilIsMastery]

That's not what your source says EMST says.

Are you now saying that EMST and Stavros are wrong?
Are you now contradicting your source, which you have abused other people in defense of?
Are you going to apologize to those you have abused in defense of EMST?
No.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216633.500-science-rocks-reveal-the-signature-of-fusion-at-the-centreof-the-earth-.html

NUCLEAR fusion could be responsible for at least some of the Earth's heat, according to one of the researchers involved in the current controversy over producing cold fusion in a test tube.

Steven Jones and his team at Brigham Young University, Utah, who last week published the results of their experiments on cold fusion in Nature (vol 338, p 737), suggest that the fusion of deuterium and hydrogen could produce the isotope helium-3 deep inside the Earth. This mechanism would also explain the high levels of helium-3 found in rocks, liquids and gases from volcanoes and regions in the Earth's crust where tectonic plates are active.
Read it and weep...:bawl:

[OilIsMastery]

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jul/whats-cooking-at-center-of-earth

The controversial idea that Earth has a nuclear reactor at its core (Discover, August 2002) may soon be put to the test. Physicists in Russia and the Netherlands have proposed using neutrino detectors to search for evidence of a five-mile-wide uranium ball at the planet’s center, churning out the heat that powers Earth’s magnetic field.

Neutrinos and their antimatter twins, antineutrinos, are lightweight, charge-free, nearly inert particles spit out by nuclear processes. If, as independent geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon argues, there is a “georeactor” at Earth’s core, it would emit vast numbers of antineutrinos. Because they react little with matter, antineutrinos usually zip through Earth unscathed. But they can be detected by a special type of apparatus: a huge tank of liquid in which rare antineutrino collisions with atomic nuclei produce faint but measurable bursts of light.

Researchers at the Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and the Russian Research Center of the Kurchatov Institute have presented plans for a 1,000-ton detector at the Baksan Neutrino Observatory beneath the Caucasus Mountains. The scientists say their experiment could confirm the existence of the georeactor within a few years. Meanwhile, a team at the Kernfysisch Versneller Institute in the Netherlands advocates building a similar antineutrino detector below the Caribbean island of Curaçao. The site is more than 600 miles from the nearest nuclear power plant, which would simplify identifying antineutrinos from Earth’s core. “These proposals are a good example of how science should progress,” says Herndon.
Trippy doesn't even need science to progress because his religion tells him scientific observation isn't necessary.

[Trippy]

No.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216633.500-science-rocks-reveal-the-signature-of-fusion-at-the-centreof-the-earth-.html


Read it and weep...:bawl:

BZZZZT.

Cold fusion has even less hard science behind it then you claim subduction theory does.

I thought you were looking for a simpler theory with verifiable results?

[Trippy]

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jul/whats-cooking-at-center-of-earth


Trippy doesn't even need science to progress because his religion tells him scientific observation isn't necessary.

Right...

So when I ask you about Neutrinos, you claim they're irrelevant, and then go and cite an article that says exactly the same thing I did - that if there was a nuclear process operating in the earth, there would be a detectable neutrino signal.

How exactly does that contradict me again?

All it says is that these particular researchers are going looking for what I said would be there if they're ideas are correct.

Once again, OIM fails at basic reading comprehension.

[Trippy]

:ROTFLMGDAO:

This is just too fricking funny!!!!

From your OWN DAMN SOURCE!!!


"Sea water, which contains small amounts of deuterium, is sucked down where tectonic plates in the Earth's crust converge. It may reach the top of the mantle - the so-called Moho - before being drawn up into the ocean again at another point in the Earth's crust. According to Jones, a mass of water equal to the mass of the entire ocean passes through the mantle in about a billion years." - Steven Jones, 1983.

1. His idea requires subduction tectonics to be true to provide a source for the Deuterium. It's explicitly stated in the article, and it's implicit in his calculations.

2. That article was published in 1983. It's 20th century science.

What's your latest Mantra? Oh yeah, I remember: "Don't you think we've made a few advances since the 20th century".

My god, you're a total **** wit.

[OilIsMastery]

Cold fusion has even less hard science behind it then you claim subduction theory does.
Oh really?

Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed, other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and transmutation of elements. In this report, we present additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The experiments were reproducible. A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/

Read it and weep...:bawl:

[OilIsMastery]

I have to be honest with you Trippy, I really appreciate your fanaticism because without intellectual fossils like you science could never progress.

Cold fusion. Now it's obvious why there is a religious conspiracy against it.

[Trippy]

Oh really?



http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/

Read it and weep...:bawl:

I have to be honest with you Trippy, I really appreciate your fanaticism because without intellectual fossils like you science could never progress.

Cold fusion. Now it's obvious why there is a religious conspiracy against it.

Good god man.

Do you know anything of Cold Fusion?

It's even further from Mainstream than Plasma Cosmology, or the electric universe theories.

And you're making some Awfully big assumptions on my opinion of the validity of cold fusion.

But then, there's nothing new there.

None of which does naything to address the point, however, that your own souces contradict you.

[OilIsMastery]

Cold fusion is science fact. You're living in the Dark Ages.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

[OilIsMastery]

Here's some lighter reading for you:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9812706208/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Cold-Fusion-Science-Energy/dp/0976054582/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

[Trippy]

Cold fusion is science fact. You're living in the Dark Ages.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

Here's some lighter reading for you:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9812706208/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Cold-Fusion-Science-Energy/dp/0976054582/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

Cold fusion is far from science fact.

Your opinion otherwise doesn't change that.

And the simple fact of the matter is that you're still contradicting yourself.


Cold fusion is not the mechanism that Stavros posited.
The theory that says cold fusion, also says that Subduction is a scientific fact, and subducted sea-water provides the source of deuterium to the mantle.

[OilIsMastery]

Cold fusion is far from science fact.
Peer reviewed science and the United States Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center disagree with you. Who am I going to trust the Navy or some fiundamentalist on the internet? You lose.

[Trippy]

Cold fusion is far from science fact.

Your opinion otherwise doesn't change that.

And the simple fact of the matter is that you're still contradicting yourself.


Cold fusion is not the mechanism that Stavros posited.
The theory that says cold fusion, also says that Subduction is a scientific fact, and subducted sea-water provides the source of deuterium to the mantle.


Peer reviewed science and the United States Navy Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center disagree with you. Who am I going to trust the Navy or some fiundamentalist on the internet? You lose.

You loose.

[OilIsMastery]

Cold fusion is not the mechanism that Stavros posited.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

controlled nuclear fusions.
:shrug:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v19n1a3.php

An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound
Starvros T. Tassos Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens, P.O. Box 200 48, 118 10 Athens, Greece & David J. Ford 2/22 Mitchell St.,Townsville, N.Q., Australia 4810

Abstract -- Physical evidence indicates that a thermally driven Earth, plate tectonics, and elastic rebound theory violate fundamental physical principles, and that Earth is a quantified solid body, the size of which possibly increases with time. Earth's core is considered as a low-temperature, high-energy/high-frequency, high-tension material, wherein new elements form, constituting the Excess Mass (EM), which is then added atom-by-atom to the overlying mantle. Iron, with the highest nuclear binding energy of 8.8 MeV, should be the last element to form. Due ultimately to cosmic stretching, the internal pressure gradient is from the center, toward the surface; so EM ascends as solid state "wedges," which upon encountering an anisotropic obstacle, then accumulates due to its blockage. Iron ascends in the from of reduced high pressure Fe 2- , to a depth of about 700 km. At shallower depths it then releases 4-5 electrons whilst oxidizing and decompressing at reducing confining pressures. Some of the released excess mass electrons travel as free electrons, and thereby cause microcracks to form when the electron concentration exceeds the threshold of >10 18 electrons/m 2 ; these microcracks enlarge as their concentration increases and their cumulative internal electron pressure builds up; via this self-repulsive electron pressure a great mass of rock is uplifted over time. Microcracks serve both as resonant cavities for "old" metallic bond electrons from Fe 2,3+ and "new" electrons from Fe 2- , radiating at the infrared, and as electrical capacitors, producing effective semiconductor behavior. If and when the concentration of electrons in the microcavity and of p-holes at the rock-microcrack interface surpasses the necessary electro-motive force potential, the electrical impedance to electron flow is attrited and dielectric breakdown occurs, i.e., the transient discharging of electrons very rapidly empties the network of cavities, causing an implosive collapse of the regional network of parallel microcavities. This high-energy implosion coerces the otherwise plastic surrounding rocks to repond instantaneously elastically, and an earthquake is thus generated. The same implosion that caused the earthquake can also produce a fault rupture of the rocks if its transient dynamic shock pressure exceeds the rock's bonded strength. The magnitude of an earthquake depends on the size of the active volume of almost concurrently discharging microcavities. Hence, we are referring to an electromagnetic self-organized criticality, a direct implication of whch is the inherent non-predictability of any earthquake's timing or energy release.

http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112566.htm

Space is the infinite source of all mass that becomes measurable as energy-traveling and matter-standing waves, i.e., waving space itself at 299792458 m/s. Energy and matter are sine waveforms of local anisotropy in the elastic, large-scale isotropic continuum, which is lossless and has infinite elasticity to any velocity < light speed, and infinite rigidity at v³c. Gravity is tension and its inverse quantity is ‘mass'-space density. All wave-particles contain a constant quantum of tensional elastic potential, irrespective of wavelength, as per E=hf. Due to constant linear stretching, the total tensional elastic energy (E), i.e., frequency, raises proportionally counteracting entropic dissipation, whilst local space density (m), inversely and proportionally increases, as one entity, thus the constancy of the square root of their ratio. In the context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics – EMST, Earth is a quantified solid black body that appears to grow with time. Earth's inner core is an equilibrium high-tension/high-frequency location, wherein energy-traveling waves transform into matter-standing waves, so that the conservation principle is not violated. Form new elements, i.e., ‘Excess Mass', which are added atom-by-atom, the greater bulk concentrically, whereas the ‘active' part rises in the cold and increasingly rigid with depth mantle, as the seismic wave velocity data indicate. Upon oxidation-decompression the reduced form releases its ‘excess' electrons. Iron with the highest nuclear binding energy of 8.8 MeV should be the last element to form; thus the absence of true oceanic crust older than 200 m.y. High temperatures and melting are local and episodic phenomena, sourced by radiant heat, i.e., electron resonance in 10-6 m micro-cracks at 1014 Hz, at depths lower than 5 km; the maximum depth horizontal micro-cracks can remain permanently open.
Read it and weep...:bawl:

[Trippy]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

:shrug:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v19n1a3.php

http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112566.htm

Read it and weep...:bawl:

None of those talk about cold fusion.
Controled fusion is not the same as cold fusion (again, you fail to pick up on the subtleties, suggesting your reading comprehension is sub-par).

Stavros does however, talk about using electron degeneracy pressure to increase the earths internal pressure to the point where spontaneous fusion can occur.

So, again, you loose.

[OilIsMastery]

Trippy, the reason why I make mistakes is because I don't know everything there is to know about the universe like you do. I'm not omniscient like you. I'm not perfect and infallible like you are. I'm human and I'm still learning how the world works through observation and future observations. I don't have a time machine, a crystal ball, and x-ray vision like you do. And I cannot predict the future like you can. If only I was like you I would never have to read or consider new scientific observations because I would know everything already. Please forgive me.

[Trippy]

Trippy, the reason why I make mistakes is because I don't know everything there is to know about the universe like you do.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed this, Nor have I ever stated or implied this.

I'm not omniscient like you.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed this, Nor have I ever stated or implied this.

I'm not perfect and infallible like you are.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed this, Nor have I ever stated or implied this.

I'm human and I'm still learning how the world works through observation and future observations.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed otherwise for myself.

I don't have a time machine, a crystal ball, and x-ray vision like you do.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed this, Nor have I ever stated or implied this.

And I cannot predict the future like you can. Please forgive me.
Strawman Fallacy - I have never claimed this, Nor have I ever stated or implied this.

I'm fairly sure that anyone can see through your charade.

Here you're appealing to ignorance (among other things) in an attempt to mock me.

Did it ever occur to you that if you worke don your attitude, and didn't go out of your way to antagonize people, that maybe you'd get on better.

That maybe if you handed out less abuse, you'd recieve less?

No, I imagine not.

[OilIsMastery]

You mean you don't know everything about the universe?

[Trippy]

You mean you don't know everything about the universe?

Quote where I have claimed I do.

[OilIsMastery]

Quote where I have claimed I do.
Glad to hear we're on the same page.

[Trippy]

Glad to hear we're on the same page.

I however am not the one who has been going around proclaiming ill thought out opinions as unquestionable truths, and abusing people who disagree with me and point out flaws, or running away when it's unequivocably pointed out just how wrong I am.

So no, we're far from being on the same page - I at least can honestly say I have conducted myself in a reasonable manner, or done my best to attempt to do so, and that I have maintained my integrity.

[AlphaNumeric]

Ah raspberries, I missed out on this one.

I see OIM is accusing Trippy of the same things many people accuse me of, omniscience. They fail to realise that there's a difference between "I know everything", which neither Trippy or I claim, and "I know a lot about this area, a lot more than you".

This mistake arises because whether we be omniscient or just very knowledgable in physics, it means that 99 times out of 100 we can easily give a valid answer to a question a person who is not very knowledgeable will ask. And if we so desire, the other 1 time in 100 we can make an answer up which is sufficiently wordy or complicated to make it seem like we know, but both Trippy and I admit when we don't know the answer.

Pick an area outside things like physics (and in Trippy's case chemistry) and we'll show a lot more ignorance. Who was King of France in 1742? Well Google will tell me but I don't know. What was the geopolitical landscape which lead to the 100 years war? No idea. What made Pauli predict the existence of the neutrino? Well now I'm on 'home turf' and I can tell you, in great detail, the physics and the history of that physics. Why? Because I spent many months and years learning the physics and the history was taught along with it, in part, and the rest of the history I've learnt from books I've read on the topic and discussions I've had with other physicists.

But people like OIM don't see that. They just see someone who is able to show them wrong at every turn using knowledge and learning. And given such people as OIM (and Kaneda, to name another) cannot accept they know nothing about a topic they have never done anything more than Google for, they reach the conclusion that we, the correctors, must be wrong. But when are we wrong? Well in OIM and Kaneda's opinion, always. Not that they can show that. Not that they look at books which we've read and the evidence in support of such things.

[D H]

I'm still learning how the world works through observation and future observations.
I beg to differ. You are desperately trying to remain as ignorant as possible by ignoring observations and by casting aspersions on anyone who knows more than you.

[OilIsMastery]

Ah raspberries, I missed out on this one.

I see OIM is accusing Trippy of the same things many people accuse me of, omniscience. They fail to realise that there's a difference between "I know everything", which neither Trippy or I claim, and "I know a lot about this area, a lot more than you".

This mistake arises because whether we be omniscient or just very knowledgable in physics, it means that 99 times out of 100 we can easily give a valid answer to a question a person who is not very knowledgeable will ask. And if we so desire, the other 1 time in 100 we can make an answer up which is sufficiently wordy or complicated to make it seem like we know, but both Trippy and I admit when we don't know the answer.

Pick an area outside things like physics (and in Trippy's case chemistry) and we'll show a lot more ignorance. Who was King of France in 1742? Well Google will tell me but I don't know. What was the geopolitical landscape which lead to the 100 years war? No idea. What made Pauli predict the existence of the neutrino? Well now I'm on 'home turf' and I can tell you, in great detail, the physics and the history of that physics. Why? Because I spent many months and years learning the physics and the history was taught along with it, in part, and the rest of the history I've learnt from books I've read on the topic and discussions I've had with other physicists.

But people like OIM don't see that. They just see someone who is able to show them wrong at every turn using knowledge and learning. And given such people as OIM (and Kaneda, to name another) cannot accept they know nothing about a topic they have never done anything more than Google for, they reach the conclusion that we, the correctors, must be wrong. But when are we wrong? Well in OIM and Kaneda's opinion, always. Not that they can show that. Not that they look at books which we've read and the evidence in support of such things.
Since you're a physics expert, perhaps you can tell us why the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits biogenic petroleum origin (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm) and why the laws of physics physically prevent the oceanic crust from subducting underneath the continental crust.

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

[AlphaNumeric]

Since you're a physics expert, perhaps you can tell us why the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits biogenic petroleum origin (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm)Doesn't load.
and why the laws of physics physically prevent the oceanic crust from subducting underneath the continental crust.Simple, they don't.

/edit

I just read his 'subduction's flaw' nonsense. He seems to be ignoring that the expansions of the Pacific and Atlantic plates (well, the addition to the relevent plates in the mid-Atlantic and around the Pacific Basin) isn't contradictory, it's the reason things like the Andes and the Rockies exist! Push an ocean plate and a continental plate together and the ocean one goes under and the continental goes over and gets 'scrunched up', forming mountains. We see it in N. America, S. America and in Nepal. India is on a different plate from China and millions of years ago India was an 'Australia' in the middle of what we now call the Indian Ocean. It then hit China (in/on the main Asian plate) and you get even more 'scrunching' because you have continental+continental, once the small amount of ocean crust around India was destroyed by, wait for it, subduction!

My God, didn't you even take high school geography?
"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005This crackpot? (http://www.expanding-earth.org/)

Simply quoting someone else doesn't make you right. You need to provide the evidence they provide. Otherwise I could say 'God exists' and use as my evidence the ~2 billion people on Earth's views and comments. Am I therefore right? What if I say 'God doesn't exist' and quote the hundreds of millions of atheists on Earth? Am I therefore right?

In either case, I should say why I agree with them, citing evidence. Where's the 'irrefutable evidence' Myers is right? Nowhere. He thinks that the fact S. America and Africa join is 'irrefutable evidence' for the Earth expanding. Wrong, since dynamic plate tectonics explains the same evidence and gives a very different view. So the evidence isn't 'irrefutable' if it's got multiple interpretations. That's by definition.

And as I said in another thread where you quoted Myers, why is he calling himself a cryptologist and a geophysicist. Aside from the fact he's clearly neither, those are two VERY different areas. I'd call myself a mathematician/physicist because what I do is mathematical methods in physics. Some people call themselves biochemists. They do the biological applications of chemistry. Cryptology and geophysics are very much seperate. Myers seems to think he's a master of two areas, when he's not even a student in one.

And you have repeatedly demonstrated you do not wish to learn physics, chemistry or geology, terrestrial or otherwise. In the many months I've been here you've demonstrate no learning, no understanding and no wish to change that. Many people who have degrees, post graduate qualifications and even years (if not decades) of experience in various areas relevent to your claims have corrected you, you ignore them all.

Tell me, what books on geology, physics or chemistry are you currently reading? If you are truely interested in this stuff, you must be reading something other than the internet. I can name a dozen books in theoretical physics I have looked through or read in the last 6 weeks (and I've been on holiday for 4 of those!), hence why I can honestly say I'm actively learning theoretical physics, my main area of discussion/interest. What about you? And remember, any book you claim you have, I can easily get ahold of (ah, the joys of a university library) and quiz you on so don't just think a quick Amazon.com search will help you.

[OilIsMastery]

Doesn't load.
Works fine for everyone I know.

[AlphaNumeric]

It works when I go through Google, but not the direct link from your post.

Do you have a link to the journal it is published in? Because anyone can type up a very short paper on such things. Also, the thing you link to is not something a physics student would do, it's much more a chemistry thing and I'm sure Trippy has already been through it with you and he has many years experience, as well as a very good education, in chemistry.

And good job on ignoring the rest of my post. I explain why Myers is a crackpot, you offer no retort. I explain why his 'it's irrefutable' is so obviously wrong even a child can see that, you offer no retort. I (as well as D H) explain that you show no knowledge in these things and no sign of trying to gain knowledge, you offer no retort. I ask you to give me a few (heck, even one will do) books you are currently reading which would demonstrate you are trying to expand your knowledge in the areas of physics, chemistry and geology, you offer no answer.

What's the matter, are you unable to answer a simple question like "What makes you think you have any understanding of physics or chemistry or geology?". Could it be that all you do is go to websites which have the same view as you and just copy and paste their arguments? I could copy and paste Wikipedia articles into my posts on physics but I don't. Why? Because it would seem like I don't understand the topic and can only do a quick "Search and paste". It seems that's all you're capable of. You have formed an opinion which is based on ignorance and, as DH says, you try desperately to maintain that ignorance by avoiding anything which is science and just going to sites you know will say what you want to hear.

If you are so sure you're right, you'd read mainstream books on physics, chemistry and geology so that you could 'beat us at our own game'. Noone is going to convince me quantum mechanics is inconsistent by posting their pet theory. They'll convince me if they learn quantum mechanics well enough to be able to use it to show its own inconsistency.

So until you can show us you have even high school level of those topics, taking the attitude that us 'experts' (which none of us are claiming to be) should be ignored or are immediately and consistently wrong is just showing how delusional and detached from the scientific method you are.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you have a link to the journal it is published in?
No. But if you rely upon the appeal to authority fallacy as the sole criteria for truth you can try the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

Because anyone can type up a very short paper on such things.
Interesting but very irrelevant to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the expansion tectonics of Europa.

[AlphaNumeric]

No. But if you rely upon the appeal to authority fallacy as the sole criteria for truthI'm not. And your sole justification is a crank who can be shown incorrect by a high school students and anyone whose even heard of plate tectonics. If the fact Africa and S. America fit together has any explaination other than "The Earth is expanding!" his evidence isn't irrefutable. And drifting tectonics are an alternative explanation.

You posted a thread about how the Earth collects matter from meteorites and comets. The Earth has a mass of M_{E} = 6 \times10^{24} kilos. Myers thinks the Earth has gained 40% of that mass somehow, thus expanding. That's 2.4 \times10^{24} kilos. Over 4.5 billion years that's about 5.3 \times 10^{14} kilos a year. Continually. No evidence at all. I think we'd notice 1.4 billion tons falling to Earth every day. And we'd measure it.

The dynamics between the Sun, Earth and Moon would be so altered by that change in mass, we'd find huge evidence of it in things like fossils, since life is very sensitive to length of seasons and years.
but very irrelevant to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the expansion tectonics of Europa. You and your citations have yet to demonstrate any understanding of that or plate tectonics.

And you're still ignoring my question on where else you are learning about these things. Are you afraid to admit you don't learn about this other than going to sites you know will agree with you?

[OilIsMastery]

You and your citations have yet to demonstrate any understanding of that or plate tectonics.
I'm pretty sure Samuel Warren Carey understood plate tectonics.

"I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

[Vkothii]

Desperately clinging to bits of old wood, are we?

Does Mr Carey have an alternative explanation for orogenies, say the obvious evidence that an ancient one in Nth America, matches up geochemically, and isotopically (i.e. it's the same age) as the trans-Antarctic orogeny? How come they're separated by thousands of km of ocean?

[OilIsMastery]

Does Mr Carey have an alternative explanation for orogenies, say the obvious evidence that an ancient one in Nth America, matches up geochemically, and isotopically (i.e. it's the same age) as the trans-Antarctic orogeny? How come they're separated by thousands of km of ocean?
Maybe you should read Carey and make an attempt at answering those questions. Then you might understand expansion tectonics.

[AlphaNumeric]

Maybe you should read Carey and make an attempt at answering those questions. Then you might understand expansion tectonics.Oh the hypocrisy!

Maybe you should read some physics, chemistry and geology. The fact I've repeatedly asked you to say what you are reading relevent to those things and you have ignored the question proves you aren't reading anything related to those, in terms of mainstream models and concepts.

And yet you have the ignorant and foolishness to tell others to read up on things you talk about.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR YOUR SILENCE WILL BE TAKEN AS AN ADMISSION YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE

Are you reading any mainstream books, lecture notes or published papers/journals on chemistry, physics or geology relevant to your claims? If so, what?

[OilIsMastery]

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR YOUR SILENCE WILL BE TAKEN AS AN ADMISSION YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE
I'm waiting for you to respond to this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2036216&postcount=71

Are you reading any mainstream books, lecture notes or published papers/journals on chemistry, physics or geology relevant to your claims? If so, what?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm waiting for you to respond to this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2036216&postcount=71I explained why Myers is an ignorant wacko and particularly why his claims against subduction are nonsense. As for the one paper you are reading, why did it take you so long to answer my question? Why didn't you say "Respond to post 71 first" immediately? You're just looking for excuses. Besides it has one citation in 6 years, that's the classic calling card of a paper noone things is worth the paper it's written on. One of the authors is not an academic (ie Kennedy), but someone who has a complete biased view and while superficially might be someone whose employed by an actual energy company, 'Gas Resources Corporation' is not an energy company but just a 'sock puppet company' the author has created. If I signed all my correspondences 'AlphaNumeric, British Academy for the Advancement of Particle and Astronomical Physics' it wouldn't make my ideas any more valid and it would be deliberately misleading to readers because it would seem at first glance I'm part of some group who are viable physicists.

Got anything which has more citations than you have brain cells, ie 3?

[OilIsMastery]

I guess I'll have to wait forever then. Too bad you aren't interested in a conversation.

[Vkothii]

Does you 'waiting forever' also imply you won't be posting any more drek, like forever??

[CheskiChips]

Keep up the good work OIM; these videos add validity to your cause.

[AlphaNumeric]

I guess I'll have to wait forever then. Simply ignoring that I just responded doesn't mean I didn't respond.

The comments about subduction in your post are wrong. Flat out wrong. And I have addressed why. The 'paper' you link to has no accreditation within the academic community and at least one of the authors is biased and ignorant about physics. And by asking someone to explain why, you are demonstrating your own ignorance of physics and chemistry, as both Trippy and I have explained to you. Denying you've been schooled on such things many times doesn't mean you haven't.

You are a hypocrite for telling others to read up on things you yourself do not read up on.
Too bad you aren't interested in a conversation. I am. I ask you questions, you ignore them. Denying I attempt to engage you in conversation doesn't mean I haven't. Do you think other people will suddenly be unable to see my posts just because you deny they exist?

You are just like Kaneda. You demand answers and then ignore when they are provided, because they aren't the answers you want to hear. It's very pathetic of you.

[OilIsMastery]

One of the authors is not an academic (ie Kennedy)
Sadly there is no author referenced named Kennedy which makes me question your literacy and reading comprehension.

[AlphaNumeric]

Sadly there is no author referenced named Kennedy which makes me question your literacy and reading comprehension.The fact it's obvious I'm referring to 'Kenney', particularly since I specifically talk about the author/owner of http://www.gasresources.net/ and there's only one letter difference shows how dishonest you have to be in a desperate attempt to 'win' a discussion. Are your literacy and comprehensive skills so poor you cannot associate concepts/words like Kennedy and 'Gas Resources Corporation' is not an energy company but just a 'sock puppet company' the author has created with the author 'Kenney' of http://www.gasresources.net/ ?

Do you think people will question whether I read your links, after I talk about the incorrect claims about subduction your links make? Are you that desperate in your claims?

You really are desperate, aren't you? :roflmao:

[OilIsMastery]

Keep up the good work OIM; these videos add validity to your cause.
Thank you for your kindness...;)

[Pandaemoni]

No. But if you rely upon the appeal to authority fallacy as the sole criteria for truth you can try the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

An appeal to authority is only fallacious when teh authority is not an expert on the topic. Were that not the case, it would be logically invalid to go to doctors when you are sick or to talk to a lawyer when arrested (after all, they are nothing more than "authorities" on medical and legal matters, respectively).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html sets up standards that are useful in evaluating permissible and imperssible invocations of authority.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:


1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

...

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

...

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

...

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

...

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0309/europa1_gal_c1.jpg




Europa, Blackish/reddish appearing lines in my opinion maybe from Iodine concentrations?

DwayneD.L.Rabon

[kaneda]

OilIsMastery. If you want to know AlphaNumeric's opinion on anything, just check it out on the internet. That'll save AN doing it and writing it up in his own stolen words.

[OilIsMastery]

Get this: according to Plate Tectonics mythology, Earth is the only planet in the universe with subduction zones.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002

Abstract. Plate tectonics governs the topography and motions of the surface of Earth, and the loss of heat from Earth's interior, but appears to be found uniquely on Earth in the Solar System. Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? This is one of the major questions in earth and planetary sciences research, and raises a wide range of related questions

http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/faculty/profiles/stern.html

“Earth is the only planet with plate tectonics. That means it’s special in space, and it’s probably special in time, too. There must have been a time when the Earth didn’t have plate tectonics. The Earth had a very different tectonic, geologic style. There were no mid-ocean ridges with continents moving apart. There were no subduction zones where oceanic crust would have been going down,” Stern explained.LOL. Wow they are really desperate now.

[AlphaNumeric]

OilIsMastery. If you want to know AlphaNumeric's opinion on anything, just check it out on the internet. That'll save AN doing it and writing it up in his own stolen words.Of which you have no evidence other than your dislike of being told you're wrong and then shown to be wrong. Ben, D H, JamesR et al all agree with me, yet I'm the one who, you claim, steals all his posts. Not that you present any evidence. You just hope if you keep telling everyone the guy whose proven he's a physicist/mathematician is a thief maybe that'll mean you aren't as wrong as everyone knows you are.

Showing someone else wrong (not that you've managed that) doesn't make you automatically right. Science isn't "Us or them!". But the nuances of science are not known to you.

[D H]

Get this: according to Plate Tectonics mythology, Earth is the only planet in the universe with subduction zones.
There you go again, Commandment Breaker. Your post is a lie, appeals from ridicule, is a red herring, is a hasty generalization, and quotes out of context, all in a few short words. Very good. It is quite rare that one gets to observer someone as adept at breaking the ninth commandment as are you.

[OilIsMastery]

Your post is a lie
In what way is my post a lie?

appeals from ridicule, is a red herring, is a hasty generalization, and quotes out of context, all in a few short words. Very good. It is quite rare that one gets to observer someone as adept at breaking the ninth commandment as are you.
Funny but that has nothing to do with tectonics.

[pjdude1219]

Question, is OIM still posting stuff refutable by things learned in middle school?

[AlphaNumeric]

In what way is my post a lie?Do you know the difference between the solar system and the universe? Or shall we find a 7 year old to explain it to you?
Funny but that has nothing to do with tectonics. Practically nothing you say has anything valid to do with science in general. That isn't our fault.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you know the difference between the solar system and the universe? Or shall we find a 7 year old to explain it to you?
Nice straw man. I guess that's the only way to make it fair for plate tectonics. Do you know what space is?

Earth is the only planet with plate tectonics. That means it’s special in space.
I forgot you're illiterate. Even if it was the solar system, plate tectonics would still be a joke.

[AlphaNumeric]

Nice straw man. I guess that's the only way to make it fair for plate tectonics. Do you know what space is?How is it a strawman? You asked what about your post was a lie, I pointed out you claimed mainstream physics was talking about the universe when your own post quoted 'solar system'. Hence you lied.

And nice try at creating your own strawman, what has the definition/properties of space got to do with your claims about plate tectonics.

And I notice you never retorted my criticism of Myers's claim about subduction.
Oh wait nevermind, you're illiterate.I'm illiterate because you read 'solar system' as 'universe'? Good one.

Which of us just got schooled on basic physics and chemistry? You. Which of us can demonstrate working understanding of physics and chemistry? Me.
Even if it was the solar systemSo you admit you misread it?
plate tectonics would still be laughable. It's not like it's got a load of evidence and Myers's claims are both lacking in evidence and actually contradict evidence or anything like that....

Even if it was the solar system,

[OilIsMastery]

How is it a strawman?
It's a straw man because noone claimed the solar system is the universe.

You're illiterate because you don't know how to read the word space.

And you're a joke because you rely upon strawmen arguments. I would too if I was arguing for plate tectonics.

[EndLightEnd]

Alpha Numeric I have one question for you please.

How do you explain all the spread zones on Europa when are clearly no subduction zones?

[AlphaNumeric]

It's a straw man because noone claimed the solar system is the universe.You asked where your post lied. Your post said that mainstream physics claimed the Earth was the only planet in the universe with tectonics. Your own quote of mainstream physics said 'solar system', not universe.

So you're the one who misread 'solar system' as 'universe'.
You're illiterate because you don't know how to read the word space.You said "Earth is the only planet in the universe with subduction zones.". Immediately after which you quote "but appears to be found uniquely on Earth in the Solar System. Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?".

Notice how you quote 'solar system', not 'universe'. And yet you claim I'm the illiterate one! :rolleyes:

[Trippy]

21st Century science.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16415723

EndLightEnd, OIM.

You are, of course, both no doubt aware that all faults contain elements of strike slip and dip slip motion?

So... Just because we haven't found any obvious subduction zones yet on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't vertical motion, and recycling of crust?

I assume that you're also both aware that in the last 12 months there has been at least one paper published suggesting that the combination of water and a thin crust for tectonics, as we observe it, to occur.

I'm also going to point out that there's one word that's implied in OIM's quote, even though it's not explicitly stated, and that is the word observed.

"Earth is the only planet [observed] with plate tectonics."

The word space in this context also does not explicitly, or implicitly mean the universe as a whole.

Even it did, it's irrelevant any.

So what? Earth is the only planet in the universe we observe active plate tectonics/subduction zones.

Big deal. We've observed the surfaces of what 3 other planets and maybe half a dozen moons thought to be capable of vulcanism, or this sort of activity?

Of which, how many of these planets have a thin crust with liquid water on it?

Oh right, just one.

Try and keep just a little perspective - it generally helps.

[Trippy]

Not to mention the fact that if you actually take the time to do the research, there's plenty of evidence of compressional/convergent features on Europa, so really, the justifications for this (OIM's) idea have no merit.

[OilIsMastery]

21st Century science.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16415723
Ad hoc nonsense that is completely unintelligible to the average person.

You are, of course, both no doubt aware that all faults contain elements of strike slip and dip slip motion?
No. I'm not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.

So... Just because we haven't found any obvious subduction zones yet on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't vertical motion, and recycling of crust?
Tell that to the plate tectonics scientists who say there is no subduction or recycling on Europa.

I assume that you're also both aware that in the last 12 months there has been at least one paper published suggesting that the combination of water and a thin crust for tectonics, as we observe it, to occur.
Asssuming is what lead you to believe in subduction, plate tectonics, and fossil fuel. Link please.

I'm also going to point out that there's one word that's implied in OIM's quote, even though it's not explicitly stated, and that is the word observed.

"Earth is the only planet [observed] with plate tectonics."
You care about observations all of the sudden?

The word space in this context also does not explicitly, or implicitly mean the universe as a whole.

Even it did, it's irrelevant any.
:rolleyes:

So what? Earth is the only planet in the universe we observe active plate tectonics/subduction zones.
LOL. Yeah so I guess God made the Earth magical after all. What a miracle.

Big deal. We've observed the surfaces of what 3 other planets and maybe half a dozen moons thought to be capable of vulcanism, or this sort of activity?

Of which, how many of these planets have a thin crust with liquid water on it?

Oh right, just one.

Try and keep just a little perspective - it generally helps.
Granted. Point taken. But subduction is still a joke.

[AlphaNumeric]

Ad hoc nonsense that is completely unintelligible to the average person..So your logic is "I don't understand it, so it's wrong!"

And Myer's 'work' is ad hoc BS.
No. I'm not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.And we're back to what I first said in this thread, just because we are much more educated than you in something doesn't mean we think we know it all. You're the one making claims about how you know more than the entirety of educated scientists when you know nothing about a topic. Like subduction.
Tell that to the plate tectonics scientists who say there is no subduction or recycling on Europa.Do they say 'We haven't found any' or do they say 'It's categorically impossible'. Please quote them, don't paraphrase them.
LOL. Yeah so I guess God made the Earth magical after all. What a miracle..He didn't say that. The Earth is unique in many of our observations, for instance it's the only planet observed with life on it. Few scientists think it's the only one with life on it, we just haven't found any other YET.
. But subduction is still a joke. No. We're not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.

[EndLightEnd]

Alpha Numeric I have one question for you please.

How do you explain all the spread zones on Europa when are clearly no subduction zones?

Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it. Here it is again, an answer would be nice.

[Trippy]

Ad hoc nonsense that is completely unintelligible to the average person.
Why? Because you don't understand it? Or because it implies you're wrong?

All it does is talk about observational results relating to Europa.

No. I'm not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.
We've already had this disucssion you passive aggressive dishonest illiterate hack.

I am not, and have not claimed to be aware of 'everything'.

Tell me something. Are you admitting that you're ignorant of even introductory Geology?

I thought you said you grew up in California?

Tell that to the plate tectonics scientists who say there is no subduction or recycling on Europa.

I'm fairly confident that you'll find that the majority of people who cliam there is no crustal recycling going on on Europa are fundamenally opposed to subduction, afterall, the main stream accepts the evidence that the surface of Europa is relatively young.

Asssuming is what lead you to believe in subduction, plate tectonics,

I've already stated that this is a wrong assumption on your part. What were my exact words? That I was of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support the theory?

The difference between us is that I have actually looked into it, where as you have admitted you're ignorant of even the basics.

and fossil fuel.

Pure speculation on your part, at no point have I stated or implied that I 'believe' in fossil fuels (If I had, you would have quoted me last time I asked you to prove this statement). What I have done however, is demonstrate how your arguments have been, by and large, based in lies, fallacies, ignorance, and factually inaccurate articles.

Link please.
Here's a citation: Diana Valencia, Richard J. O'Connell, and Dimitar D. Sasselov “Inevitability of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths” The Astrophysical Journal, volume 670, part 2 (2007)

If you're genuinely interested, go find a copy of the article yourself.

I don't recall if it's explicitly stated in the article, but it's very definitely implied.

You care about observations all of the sudden?

Don't be an ass.
Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

LOL. Yeah so I guess God made the Earth magical after all. What a miracle.

Granted. Point taken. But subduction is still a joke.

Congratulations on quoting me out of context yet again what's especially amusing about the first part is the last part - that you concede the point, that at this point the earth seems special because we're working from an inherently limited data set.

[Trippy]

21st Century science.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16415723

EndLightEnd, OIM.

You are, of course, both no doubt aware that all faults contain elements of strike slip and dip slip motion?

So... Just because we haven't found any obvious subduction zones yet on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't vertical motion, and recycling of crust?

I assume that you're also both aware that in the last 12 months there has been at least one paper published suggesting that the combination of water and a thin crust for tectonics, as we observe it, to occur.

I'm also going to point out that there's one word that's implied in OIM's quote, even though it's not explicitly stated, and that is the word observed.

"Earth is the only planet [observed] with plate tectonics."

The word space in this context also does not explicitly, or implicitly mean the universe as a whole.

Even it did, it's irrelevant any.

So what? Earth is the only planet in the universe we observe active plate tectonics/subduction zones.

Big deal. We've observed the surfaces of what 3 other planets and maybe half a dozen moons thought to be capable of vulcanism, or this sort of activity?

Of which, how many of these planets have a thin crust with liquid water on it?

Oh right, just one.

Try and keep just a little perspective - it generally helps.

Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it. Here it is again, an answer would be nice.

Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it, but here's my point again.

Just because we have not observed what we recognize as subduction zones on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't crustal recycling happening on Europa.

You think maybe that the strike-slip faults have exactly zero dip-slip components?
You think maybe the compressive features aren't compressive?
Perhaps you think that Water can freeze, but ice can't melt?
Or maybe there's a gap between the icey crust and the watery mantle?

[EndLightEnd]

Big deal. We've observed the surfaces of what 3 other planets and maybe half a dozen moons thought to be capable of vulcanism, or this sort of activity?

Of which, how many of these planets have a thin crust with liquid water on it?

Oh right, just one.

Well right now just Earth, but the scientific community has pretty much agreed liquid water used to exist on mars. Mars also has volcanoes which are now dead and mirrors earth in many ways, this is why it is such an interesting planet to study.

Yet....no subduction zones! How can a planet which DID have liquid water, and has clearly had volcanism in the past have NO subduction zones?

Here is how Mars is expanding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1FIlWfglrg&feature=related

In this video the upper tectonic layer (the "continents" which are the oldest and most highly elevated parts of the planet) fit together PERFECTLY just like the upper tectonic layers of Earth when re-winded. Just like on Ganymede, just like on Europa.

On all these planetary bodies there is old material (upper tectonic plates, which the scientific communities have confirmed is much older AND higher altitude) and the new material (which we know is new due to lack of craterization) which is the lower tectonics. By shrinking ONLY the LOWER tectonic areas (the new material, on Earth the seafloor), the UPPER tectonic areas (the "continents") fit together perfectly, on all planetary bodies observed so far. Even on planetary bodies known to have water in the past and volcanism.

You really think that is just coincidence the upper tectonics always fit together perfectly?

[Trippy]

Well right now just Earth, but the scientific community has pretty much agreed liquid water used to exist on mars. Mars also has volcanoes which are now dead and mirrors earth in many ways, this is why it is such an interesting planet to study.

Yet....no subduction zones! How can a planet which DID have liquid water, and has clearly had volcanism in the past have NO subduction zones?

Here is how Mars is expanding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1FIlWfglrg&feature=related

In this video the upper tectonic layer (the "continents" which are the oldest and most highly elevated parts of the planet) fit together PERFECTLY just like the upper tectonic layers of Earth when re-winded. Just like on Ganymede, just like on Europa.

On all these planetary bodies there is old material (upper tectonic plates, which the scientific communities have confirmed is much older AND higher altitude) and the new material (which we know is new due to lack of craterization) which is the lower tectonics. By shrinking ONLY the LOWER tectonic areas (the new material, on Earth the seafloor), the UPPER tectonic areas (the "continents") fit together perfectly, on all planetary bodies observed so far. Even on planetary bodies known to have water in the past and volcanism.

You really think that is just coincidence the upper tectonics always fit together perfectly?

Ugh.

I don't mean to be rude, but you do actually understand what Tectonic theory says don't you?

You do understand that when Alfred Wegner first proposed the continental drift theory, the fact that the coastlines of the continents matched up was cited as evidence supporting continental drift don't you?

That's the thing - you keep hammering on about this point, but it's a nothing, it's also predicted by continental drift theory.

it also does nothing to change the fact that Neal Adams has no background in Geology and his video of the earth contains substantial factual inaccuracies.

As far as Mars goes, Mars is a smaller planet, that cooled quicker, had a thicker crust then the earth, and only had liquid water on the surface for a short period of time.

And i'm sure you'll be able to prove that there are no compressive features on the surface of mars?

[OilIsMastery]

I'm fairly confident that you'll find that the majority of people who cliam there is no crustal recycling going on on Europa are fundamenally opposed to subduction, afterall, the main stream accepts the evidence that the surface of Europa is relatively young.
No. You're wrong again. Even the plate tectonics cultists on Retardipedia say there is no subduction on any extraterrestrial planet in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist.

Even the morons who edit Retardipedia understand that basic fact. But Trippy doesn't.

[OilIsMastery]

Just because we have not observed what we recognize as subduction zones on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't crustal recycling happening on Europa.
And thus ladies and gentleman, religious fundamentalism was born. Observation is no longer relevant...:rolleyes:

[OilIsMastery]

it also does nothing to change the fact that Neal Adams has no background in Geology and his video of the earth contains substantial factual inaccuracies.
If the only argument I had for subduction zones is that Neal Adams is a comic book artist I would keep repeating it over and over as well.

The fact is no geologist would be so stupid as to claim there is subduction on Mars or any other planet in the solar system.

[Trippy]

No. You're wrong again. Even the plate tectonics cultists on Retardipedia say there is no subduction on any extraterrestrial planet in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

Even the morons who edit Retardipedia understand that basic fact. But Trippy doesn't.

We've already discussed this OIM.

Remember the point, which you ceded, that we can only observe the surfaces of a hand full of planets.

Are you suggesting that your eyesite is suffiiciently good that you can observe the surfaces of extra solar planets, and that you know for a fact that Tectonics isn't active?

Earth may be the only planet we currently observe active tectonics on the surface of, but that by no means implies that Earth is the only planet in the universe that currently has, or has ever had active tectonics.

For you to attempt to imply this is simply dishonest.

[Trippy]

And thus ladies and gentleman, religious fundamentalism was born. Observation is no longer relevant...:rolleyes:

This statement is irrelevant, an outright lie, and a total misrepresnetation of what I actually said.

Therefore, I will not be addressing it further, simply relying on the integrity of the mods, and the average reader to understand what I actually said, and have said in the past.

IE that:

1. Compression features are observed on the surface of Europa.
2. There are mechanisms other then tectonic subduction responsible for crustal recycling on Europa.
3. Yes, we do not observe what we recognize as subduction zones on the surface of Europa, but that may simply mean that subduction zones on Europa do not resemble subduction zones on earth.

[OilIsMastery]

We've already discussed this OIM.

Remember the point, which you ceded, that we can only observe the surfaces of a hand full of planets.
Fair enough I'll grant you that but now we are delving into the realm of a priori theory, metaphysics, and religion which presumably, as a scientist, you hate.

Are you suggesting that your eyesite is suffiiciently good that you can observe the surfaces of extra solar planets, and that you know for a fact that Tectonics isn't active?

Earth may be the only planet we currently observe active tectonics on the surface of, but that by no means implies that Earth is the only planet in the universe that currently has, or has ever had active tectonics.

For you to attempt to imply this is simply dishonest.
No. Of course the tectonics are active. Earth expansion means active tectonics...:rolleyes: By way of rift/fault spreading. There is no subduction. It's subduction that's wrong, not active tectonics.

[Trippy]

If the only argument I had for subduction zones is that Neal Adams is a comic book artist I would keep repeating it over and over as well.
Completely irrelevant to Neal Adam's qualifications, and the factual inaccuracies contained in his video.

The fact is no geologist would be so stupid as to claim there is subduction on Mars or any other planet in the solar system.

"Has not been observed" is a hugely different statement to "Does not exist".

[EndLightEnd]

You do understand that when Alfred Wegner first proposed the continental drift theory, the fact that the coastlines of the continents matched up was cited as evidence supporting continental drift don't you?

Plate tectonics did not predict the west coast of California and East coast of Asia matching perfectly as far as I am aware. In plate tectonics if Pangea existed why would opposites sides of a land mass line up perfectly?
I could not find any information, if you have a link please share it.



As far as Mars goes, Mars is a smaller planet, that cooled quicker, had a thicker crust then the earth, and only had liquid water on the surface for a short period of time.

Please explain how the rate of cooling (it would still take a few billion years to cool) would have any effect on the tectonics?

And despite the lack of water, we still see elevated landmasses, which are consistently older (just like on earth's continents), and lower spreading zones (which are under the oceans on earth).

Are we really still thinking the Earth is ANY different than the rest of the universe? Are we still living in that bubble of were different and special somehow? In our minds we still are at the center of the universe.

And as far as the moment of inertia thing goes, we dont have a complete theory of gravity as it stands now. This is a radical new way of looking at things and would REQUIRE completely new equations. Unfortunately everyone (and this board proves it) is entirely too judgmental.

[Trippy]

Plate tectonics did not predict the west coast of California and East coast of Asia matching perfectly as far as I am aware. In plate tectonics if Pangea existed why would opposites sides of a land mass line up perfectly?
I could not find any information, if you have a link please share it.

They look like they're far from a perfect match to me, however, I imagine that it has something to do with a series of terranes that accreted on the west coast of the US, that at one time lay between North America and whatever was west of it.

Do I have link? Not currently, I did come across one, but I didn't book mark it (apparently).

It also probably has something to do with the fact that at various times (although, not neccessarily at the same time) various parts of Asia have been in contact with North America, so yeah, Plate tectnoics predicts it.

It's a nothing. All it actually means, according to plate tectonic theory, is that at some point parts of asia were in contact with parts of north america.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/550.jpg

Please explain how the rate of cooling (it would still take a few billion years to cool) would have any effect on the tectonics?
I thought the answer to this would have been obvious - For example, Mars has already cooled to the point where it can no longer support tectonics as we recognize it. In fact, the crust has thickened to the point where it can support a Volcano 27km high.

As far as Mars goes, it's (arguably) somewhat artificial - there was an article in the June 2008 issue of Nature suggestign the Martian dichotomy may be as a result of an impact.

Plate tectonics has been put forward as another possible explanation with Olympus mons, and the rather straight line of volcanoes associated with it being compared to the Japanese arc.

Here's a paper that outlines evidence for martian subduction:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4100262

I did have another one, but I seem to have accidentally deleted it (or my daughter did).

And despite the lack of water, we still see elevated landmasses, which are consistently older (just like on earth's continents), and lower spreading zones (which are under the oceans on earth).

There's a range of explanations for this, for example, if you look at the moon, the highlands represent the older, lower density crust, and the lowlands represent younger, denser flood basalts.

What's so hard abotu this to understand, that lower density solids float higher in a liquid, then higher density ones.

Are we really still thinking the Earth is ANY different than the rest of the universe?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Nobody is claiming this. And if you actually think about what i've said, that Earth is simply the only planet we have observed active tectonics on - this is a vastly different statement from some of what's being put forward on this board.

Are we still living in that bubble of were different and special somehow? In our minds we still are at the center of the universe.

You may be, but i'm not.

And as far as the moment of inertia thing goes, we dont have a complete theory of gravity as it stands now. This is a radical new way of looking at things and would REQUIRE completely new equations. Unfortunately everyone (and this board proves it) is entirely too judgmental.

Which is why it's OIM that has been the first person to start handing out abuse each, and every time.

The point you're missing is that, at this time, there is significant amounts of evidence to support the idea of subduction.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of an expanding earth, and the analysis that I have seen appears to contradict this.

I have elsewhere, for example, provided evidence supporting the existence of Wadati Bennioff zones, and oceanic crust substantialy older then OIM's rantings allow.

Meanwhile, OIM invokes theories that contradict each other, and him, that require specific circumstances, and claims to have sufficient knowledge of the surface of Venus, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, and every other extra solar planet, to completely rule out any form of crustal recycling ever.

And you're calling me judgemental for calling him out on his nonsense?

The difference between us is that he's already made up his mind that i'm closed minded (as have, apparently you) because I have thus far failed to be convinced by any of the evidence presented so far.

(Why should I accept a video on faith that contains factual inaccuracies, or papers and articles that reference the 'lost continent of Mu' and claim that the Eocene ended 24,000 years ago?)

[OilIsMastery]

Which is why it's OIM that has been the first person to start handing out abuse each, and every time.
A blatant lie. If anyone gets abused here it's me. I've been called almost more stupid names than are in your vocabulary. Frequently/mostly by you I might add.

The point you're missing is that, at this time, there is significant amounts of evidence to support the idea of subduction.
There is no evidence for subduction. None whatsoever. Subduction is physically impossible.

http://expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm

http://www.es.mq.edu.au/GEMOC/Abstracts/Abs2006/GriffinIAVCEI6.pdf

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of an expanding earth, and the analysis that I have seen appears to contradict this.

I have elsewhere, for example, provided evidence supporting the existence of Wadati Bennioff zones, and oceanic crust substantialy older then OIM's rantings allow.
There is no subduction. See for yourself.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[OilIsMastery]

(Why should I accept a video on faith that contains factual inaccuracies, or papers and articles that reference the 'lost continent of Mu' and claim that the Eocene ended 24,000 years ago?)
Probably for the same reason you "accept" there is no such thing as cold fusion, claim that in the history of science only one scientific paper has been written on cold fusion, claim that if a comic book artist says 2+2=4 it cannot be true because comic book artists have no credibility, or that hydrocarbons were only formed twice in the history of the Earth by fossils.

You believe in plate tectonics so you believe in an encyclopedia of fake made up continents, not just Mu.

The reason why you are obssessed with fake continents like Mu is because you are afraid to discuss the article here: http://thomasbrown.org/EndofFossilFuels/End_Fossil_Fuels.html

That article briefly mentions that James Churchward (a Mu believer) mentioned subterranean gas explosions.

You are afraid to address the rest of the article such as the rapid formation of coal: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120080223/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

But in a non-marine succession (Coal Measures) containing trees fossilised upright and rooted in position of growth, the rate of sedimentation (on the evidence of sediments and fossils) is found to be unrelated to degree of water turbulence (sediments and geochemistry). The upright trees were apparently overwhelmed rapidly by sediments deposited from a succession of floods characterised by a wide range of water turbulence

Therefore you obssess over the red herring and straw man Mu, even though you believe in every other fake continent ever imagined by man.

For the record, I don't believe in Mu or any other fake make believe continent that Trippy believes in.

[EndLightEnd]

A question for the plate tectonics people...

According to that sea floor map, how is it exactly that India moved independently from the east coast of Africa all the way up to south Asia, across an oceanic trench, to crash into asia to form the mountains which cannot be explained ANY other way (according to plate tectonics)?

[OilIsMastery]

A question for the plate tectonics people...

According to that sea floor map, how is it exactly that India moved independently from the east coast of Africa all the way up to south Asia, across an oceanic trench, to crash into asia to form the mountains which cannot be explained ANY other way (according to plate tectonics)?
They believe that India magically and miraculously uprooted itself from the sea floor and then used a magic carpet to fly across the Indian Ocean.

[Trippy]

A blatant lie. If anyone gets abused here it's me.

This is funny, given that for a long time you insulted me, and I did not respond what so ever, then I began questioning your literacy and numeracy skills based on your interpretations of posts and articles - an action I justified at the time, until finally I snapped and suggested you crawl out of your trailer park.

I've called you an idiot, and a liar, and have been able to at least prove/justify some of those comments.

Meanwhile, you have repeatedly stated or implied that I am an illiterate religous fundamentalist living in a cave, who's actions are comparable to those of Al Qaeda, all the while lying about your articles and the posts of others.

I've been called almost more stupid names than are in your vocabulary. Frequently/mostly by you I might add.

Not only does this sentence not make any sense, it contradicts itself as well.

There is no evidence for subduction. None whatsoever. Subduction is physically impossible.

Simply denying it's existence doesn't make it false. You still haven't explained the trends in earth quake depths observed under oceanic trenches.

http://expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm

http://www.es.mq.edu.au/GEMOC/Abstracts/Abs2006/GriffinIAVCEI6.pdf

The first link contains many misconceptions, and false assumptions, the second I will look at when I have more time.


There is no subduction. See for yourself.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg
[/quote]

We've had this discussion before.

Tell me, what would you expect to see on this map if there were subduction?

[Trippy]

Probably for the same reason you "accept" there is no such thing as cold fusion,

Blatant lie - I have not stated any such thing about cold fusion, only that it isn't currently an accepted part of mainstream science.

claim that in the history of science only one scientific paper has been written on cold fusion,

Blatant lie - I have not stated any such thing, only that YOU have only managed to produce one paper which suggests how more reliable experiments confirming cold fusion might be carried out.

claim that if a comic book artist says 2+2=4 it cannot be true because comic book artists have no credibility,

This contains two blatant lies.

1. Blatant lie: I did not claim that Comic book artists have no credibility, merely pointed out that Neal Adams had no formal qualificiations in Geology.
2. Blatant lie: I claimed that Neal Adams work had no credibility because it contains substantial inaccuracies.

or that hydrocarbons were only formed twice in the history of the Earth by fossils.

Blatant lie: I did not claim that Hydrocarbons were formed only twice in the history of the earth. At no point have I stated how often or when I think that hydrocarbons were formed. At no point have I stated by what mechanism I think they are formed.

You believe in plate tectonics so you believe in an encyclopedia of fake made up continents, not just Mu.

I am of the opinion that the evidence we currently have supports active tectonics on earth, yes. But as for believing in an encyclopedia of fake made up continents? That's a blatant mis representation, I accept the evidence of there having been multiple super continents in the past - at least some of which you have accepted in accepting the map that you keep posting.

The reason why you are obssessed with fake continents like Mu is because you are afraid to discuss the article here: http://thomasbrown.org/EndofFossilFuels/End_Fossil_Fuels.html

That article briefly mentions that James Churchward (a Mu believer) mentioned subterranean gas explosions.

Blatant lie - that's not the only problem that I've raised with that article.

You are afraid to address the rest of the article such as the rapid formation of coal: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120080223/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Another blatant lie, i'm not afraid of addressing anything. This is pure supposition on your part - and the link you've provided 404's.

Therefore you obssess over the red herring and straw man Mu, even though you believe in every other fake continent ever imagined by man.

Blatant lie. If your arguments weren't based on red herrings and straw men, I wouldn't be able to point them out.

For the record, I don't believe in Mu or any other fake make believe continent that Trippy believes in.

Wow, you don't believe in Eurafrasia (Eurasia and Africa)?

Better contact those map makers then, and explain to them how/why they've got it wrong.

[Trippy]

A question for the plate tectonics people...

According to that sea floor map, how is it exactly that India moved independently from the east coast of Africa all the way up to south Asia, across an oceanic trench, to crash into asia to form the mountains which cannot be explained ANY other way (according to plate tectonics)?

As has already been explained to you, there is no oceanic trench between Africa and India.

The african (and Indian) margins are passive, and there lies a spreading rdige between them.

No magic flying carpets involved.

[OilIsMastery]

Tell me, what would you expect to see on this map if there were subduction?
Some evidence...:crazy:

[OilIsMastery]

I have not stated any such thing about cold fusion, only that it isn't currently an accepted part of mainstream science.
:roflmao:

[OilIsMastery]

But as for believing in an encyclopedia of fake made up continents? That's a blatant mis representation, I accept the evidence of there having been multiple super continents in the past - at least some of which you have accepted in accepting the map that you keep posting.
:roflmao:

According to plate tectonics mythology you believe in all sorts of fake made up continents such as Rodinia, Pannotia, Gondwana, Laurasia, and every geological myth known to man. Quite frankly I'm shocked you don't believe in Mu. There is far more evidence for Mu than there is for any of the other made up continents you make believe in.

the link you've provided 404's.
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1970.tb01260.x

[Trippy]

Some evidence...:crazy:

Apparently you failed to understand the question the first time round, so let me restate it.

"So what [evidence] would you expect to see on that map if subduction were occuring?"

See, again, you fail to grasp the simple implication of the sentence, or yolu're deliberately ignoring context.

Should I stop assuming that English is your first language?

[Trippy]

:roflmao:

Once again, provide proof, or concede your error.

[Trippy]

:roflmao:

According to plate tectonics mythology you believe in all sorts of fake made up continents such as Rodinia, Pannotia, Gondwana, Laurasia, and every geological myth known to man. Quite frankly I'm shocked you don't believe in Mu. There is far more evidence for Mu than there is for any of the other made up continents you make believe in.


www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1970.tb01260.x

So what you're saying then is that Zircon dating is only accurate when it supports your case?

[Ophiolite]

There once was a dipshit called Oil
Whose trolling would make your blood boil
His geological knowledge
Showed he'd not been to college
So good science he tried to despoil

[OilIsMastery]

So what you're saying then is that Zircon dating is only accurate when it supports your case?
No. The zircon data IS my case.

[OilIsMastery]

There once was a dipshit called Oil
Whose trolling would make your blood boil
His geological knowledge
Showed he'd not been to college
So good science he tried to despoil
There once was a fundamentalist named Ophiolite
who believed in fairy tales like subduction and mantle recycling.
He had no logical argument
so he resorted to ad hominem
and poetic garbage,
if that even qualifies as poetry.

[Trippy]

No. The zircon data IS my case.

The 'imaginary continents' you keep referring to are based on the exact same evidence as sea floor spreading - paleomagnetism and zircon dating.

So if you accept paleomagnetism and zircon data as being valid, then you must also accept that at some point in the past, the 'Old Red' continent must have existed (for example).

[Pandaemoni]

If anyone gets abused here it's me. I've been called almost more stupid names than are in your vocabulary. Frequently/mostly by you I might add.

To some extent that may be true. Most of your posts rehash the same (I'd say "junk") science, and posters often do carry their exasperation with your silliness from one thread to the next. (Come on, iron production at the Earth's "nuclear" core? Stars have to generate temperatures of 3 Billion Kelvin for that, but the Earth is doing it on the cheap? Cold fusion, perhaps, even though cold fusion has never been demonstrated in any context and even with hydrogen, the nuclei of which are much easier to fuse?)

[OilIsMastery]

The 'imaginary continents' you keep referring to are based on the exact same evidence as sea floor spreading - paleomagnetism and zircon dating.
:rolleyes: No. Zircon data does not provide any evidence of fake made up continents 200 million years ago because the oceans that exist today didn't exist in the Triassic. The only continent at that time was the supercontinent (not Pangea because there was no Panthalassa, Tethys Sea, or any other fake b.s.).

So if you accept paleomagnetism and zircon data as being valid, then you must also accept that at some point in the past, the 'Old Red' continent must have existed (for example).
:rolleyes: No.

[OilIsMastery]

Behold the Lost Continent of Mu.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/LateTriassicGlobal.jpg/800px-LateTriassicGlobal.jpg

Absolute pseudoscience.

How on Earth to people come up with this crap? It's straight out of a fantasy novel.

[Trippy]

:rolleyes: No. Zircon data does not provide any evidence of fake made up continents 200 million years ago because the oceans that exist today didn't exist in the Triassic. The only continent at that time was the supercontinent (not Pangea because there was no Panthalassa, Tethys Sea, or any other fake b.s.).

:rolleyes: No.

Incorrect.

My statement stands.

If you accept Zircon dating, and paleomagnetism data, then you must accept that at some point (for example) the Old Red continent exists.

[Trippy]

Behold the Lost Continent of Mu.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/LateTriassicGlobal.jpg/800px-LateTriassicGlobal.jpg

Absolute pseudoscience.

How on Earth to people come up with this crap? It's straight out of a fantasy novel.

An argument from ignorance (which this is) still constitutes a logical fallacy (which this is).

[Ophiolite]

There once was a fundamentalist named Ophiolite
who believed in fairy tales like subduction and mantle recycling.
He had no logical argument
so he resorted to ad hominem
and poetic garbage,
if that even qualifies as poetry.Mine scanned and rhymed. Your was the poetic equivalent of your arguments against plate tectonics: weak, disjointed, unfocused and with no redeeming social or scientific value.

[Ophiolite]

Trippy,
have you considered the pathology of OIM's position? Does he actually believe the rubbish he spouts? If not what is his motive? If he does, how can he be so stupid in his conclusions?
I find his frerquent misinterpretation of what has been written very revealing. He does this with both posters comments and extracts from research papers. It does not have the feel of something deliberate, but is rather a genunine misunderstanding. I am not familiar enough with abnormal psychology to be able to identify possible causes for this condition. Any thoughts?

[OilIsMastery]

If you accept Zircon dating, and paleomagnetism data, then you must accept that at some point (for example) the Old Red continent exists.
What is the Old Red continent? Is that Mu?

[Trippy]

What is the Old Red continent? Is that Mu?

No.

The Old Red Continent was formed in the Devonian as a result of a collision between the Laurentia, Baltica and Avalonia cratons.

The Old Red Continent (also known as Euramerica) became part of Laurasia, and the formation of the Old Red Continent caused the Caledonian Orogeny.

My recollection is that it's referred to the Old Red continent because of the colour of some of the Devonian sandstones that were formed.

Evidence for its existence includes, but is not limited to, the common age of the mountain ranges involved, Paleomagnetic data (which indicates, for example, that Laurentia and Baltica were in the same place at the same time, but Africa, for example, was not) and Fossil assemblies.

[Trippy]

Trippy,
have you considered the pathology of OIM's position? Does he actually believe the rubbish he spouts? If not what is his motive? If he does, how can he be so stupid in his conclusions?
I find his frerquent misinterpretation of what has been written very revealing. He does this with both posters comments and extracts from research papers. It does not have the feel of something deliberate, but is rather a genunine misunderstanding. I am not familiar enough with abnormal psychology to be able to identify possible causes for this condition. Any thoughts?

I've considered it yes.
I've often wondered if English is his first language, as many of the 'mistakes' I have seen him make are consistent with ESL speakers.

In some respects I'm greatful to OIM, believe it or not.

[Trippy]

What is the Old Red continent? Is that Mu?

Besides, remember, you're the one citing articles referrencing Mu, not me.